[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53CE8EEC.2090402@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:18:52 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
CC: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/10] x86, mpx: add macro cpu_has_mpx
On 07/20/2014 10:38 PM, Qiaowei Ren wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MPX
> +#define cpu_has_mpx boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_MPX)
> +#else
> +#define cpu_has_mpx 0
> +#endif /* CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MPX */
Is this enough checking? Looking at the extension reference, it says:
> 9.3.3
> Enabling of Intel MPX States
> An OS can enable Intel MPX states to support software operation using bounds registers with the following steps:
> • Verify the processor supports XSAVE/XRSTOR/XSETBV/XGETBV instructions and XCR0 by checking
> CPUID.1.ECX.XSAVE[bit 26]=1.
That, I assume the xsave code is already doing.
> • Verify the processor supports both Intel MPX states by checking CPUID.(EAX=0x0D, ECX=0):EAX[4:3] is 11b.
I see these bits _attempting_ to get set in pcntxt_mask via XCNTXT_MASK.
But, I don't see us ever actually checking that they _do_ get set. For
instance, we do this for:
> if ((pcntxt_mask & XSTATE_FPSSE) != XSTATE_FPSSE) {
> pr_err("FP/SSE not shown under xsave features 0x%llx\n",
> pcntxt_mask);
> BUG();
> }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists